President Trump’s multi-stage plan still leaves plenty of opportunities for the Israel-Hamas war to restart.

What was unthinkable just weeks ago is now a reality: the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza may be coming to an end—at least for now. President Donald Trump announced on October 8 that both Israel and Hamas reached a ceasefire agreement that is widely described as a realistic conclusion to the two-year conflict. 

Yet, while any agreement that ends Israel’s campaign in Gaza and releases the remaining captives held by Hamas is a welcome one, the details of the so-called “roadmap” remain vague and questionable at best, leaving room for Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu to spoil broader peace talks again.

Trump’s 20-point peace plan, negotiated extensively with Arab leaders across the Middle East at the UN General Assembly in September, contains many details that look similar to previous ceasefire agreements. That approach, coupled with a clear rejection of Israel’s most hawkish demands, has helped garner Hamas’ acceptance of some core elements while cornering Netanyahu and blocking his ability to spoil the deal. The effort constitutes the strong-arm approach to foreign policy that has come to define the Trump administration.

In pressing Netanyahu and following through when the Israeli prime minister has attempted to sidestep clearly stated US interests and demands, Trump differentiates himself from previous presidents, particularly former President Joe Biden. Netanyahu has made a name for himself in US and Israeli political circles as a master of manipulation, displaying political gamesmanship that has allowed him to advance his political interests—even at the expense of his country’s security and people since October 7, 2023. At the moment, those days appear to be over.

Trump’s desire to achieve deals quickly clearly played a role in that dynamic. Values did not. Ever interested in highlighting political “wins,” the US president has consistently proven his impatience with perceived stalling tactics that go against his interests—namely that of depicting those political wins. To be clear, those “wins” are often exaggerations that can be and are debunked, such as Trump’s claims of achieving peace in seven conflicts.

Regardless, in this context, Netanyahu has overplayed his hand, becoming overly reliant on Trump as “the greatest friend to Israel” while reaching for ever-absolute and expansive objectives to mollify his restless far-right political allies. In doing so—by, for example, striking Iran after Trump announced a ceasefire ending the June 12 Day War and supposedly failing to gain clearance for strikes on Hamas negotiators in Qatar—he crossed his so-called “friend” and burned himself in the process.

As the saying goes, “don’t bite the hand that feeds you.” Netanyahu did just that one too many times and is now reaping the consequences. That dynamic seems to have worked out for the better in the international arena in this instance, should the ceasefire hold and talks progress in line with Trump’s 20-point roadmap for “peace in the Middle East.”

“Difficult” is an apt description of the overall dynamic, not only because of Trump’s sporadic track record of military action and diplomacy in the region and across the globe, but also because the 20-point plan is unfortunately vague enough to leave Netanyahu and other spoilers the opportunity to prevent its realization. Already, Israel continues to hit targets in Gaza, less than 24 hours after the ceasefire began.

To be clear, Trump’s stated vision for the region is relatively transparent: continued normalization with Israel through the Abraham Accords and a region focused on economic development and integration, rather than conflict and competition. While that vision has plenty of question marks—not limited to the realization of a viable Palestinian state and the concern that the Abraham Accords are a thinly veiled military alliance against Iran, rather than a peace framework—it still represents a vision beyond the clearly failed status quo of the past.

But a plan without details is merely hopeful words on paper. 

Trump’s willingness to strong-arm his peers uniquely positions him to advance a framework, but how far will that strong-arm approach go? Netanyahu faces corruption charges that can only be blocked by a far-right political coalition abjectly opposed to any deal with Hamas or the broader Palestinian national movement, especially a deal that rules out the territorial annexations needed for their “Greater Israel” delusions. Consequently, the prime minister has incentives to take extreme steps to undermine any subsequent stage in Trump’s plan.

The door is certainly open for just that—and not solely through actions in or on Gaza, as experience in Lebanon and Iran since October 7 highlights. The unfortunate reality is that, barring Trump’s willingness to expend extreme levels of political capital within his conservative base by publicly and privately putting Jerusalem in its place, Israeli leaders will find a way to undermine his plan.

The Trump administration has found ways to decouple decision-making from Israel that previous administrations have flatly refused to do themselves. Still, it has also shown a willingness to defer to Israel through that decoupling. With President Trump denied the Nobel Peace Prize, will he move on to the next shiny policy issue? Will his advisors manage to pump the brakes on harsher actions against Israel?

Ultimately, there are many “what ifs” to be had in the coming months that should raise very real concerns surrounding Trump’s 20-point peace plan. Jubilation is warranted for any deal that achieves a ceasefire and the release of captives, but it should be tempered by the facts on the ground and the behavioral patterns of the major players in this conflict.

For Israel, that will be a desire to retain full control of the Occupied Palestinian Territories in one way or another, much to the ongoing expense and immiseration of Palestinians and their desire for self-determination. Given that Trump’s 20-point plan essentially concludes with a reversion to the illegal occupation and apartheid status that has long defined the Israel-Palestine conflict, it is difficult to foresee its success. The odds that Trump sincerely changes that dynamic are ultimately little to none, even if doing so lies within US interests.